fixpafandomcom-20200216-history
Schirripa - swim club response letter (a).doc
Introduction Below is an e-mail correspondence from Mary Smith, Catechetical Administrator/Youth Minister of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish, Carnegie PA. Mrs. Smith forwarded a message from Patty Schirripa, elected school board member of the Carlynton school district. The text of that letter appears below. Note that the original message was a word document that lists the author property as being "Thomas Brown". Beyond the forwarded message from Francesmary Modugno informing people of a discussion to take place on a radio call-in talk show, Mrs. Smith did not include her original message to which Mrs. Schirripa responded, so we do not know the specific questions Mrs. Smith asked, nor the information that Mrs. Smith provided to Mrs. Schirripa. Mrs. Schirripa also does not provide any of the text of the “misinformation” she refers to in her responses. An on-line response to Mrs. Schirripa's message E-mail from Mary Smith, Catechetical Administrator/Youth Minister of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish, Carnegie PA From: Mary Smith {mailto:SEASccd@msn.com} Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 10:19 AM To: thomas schultz; lddedola; Lyllian Gallagher Subject: Fw: I had to ask for some clarification from the email I received and from what I am hearing around the neighborhoods. Here's the other side of the story if you are interested. --- On Wed, 7/16/08, FM modugno wrote: From: FM modugno Subject: Re: IMPORTANT - PLEASE HELP! To: "FM modugno" Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008, 10:59 PM Dear Friends and Neighbors: The discussion of the Carlynton Facilities policy and how it was passed has been moved to Friday, July 18, at 10:05am on AM1020 (KDKA). I will be a call in guest on the Marty Griffin show. I am asking again that you please listen to the program and call in to voice your opinion on the policy and on the way it was passed. The more calls they receive the more attention they will give it and if they get enough calls, they will consider moving it to a TV slot. The call in number is: 412.333.KDKA (5352) I appreciate your support in this. Francesmary Response from Patty Schirripa, elected school board member, Carlynton school district NB: this text was included in a document entitled "swim club response letter (a).doc" whose author is listed as "Thomas Brown" in the file information Mary Kay: I, too, am getting upset by the misinformation that has been circulated relating to the new facilities use policy. This matter has been discussed repeatedly since the fall of last year. Documents were requested and questions were asked relating to the operation of the swim club. The board received these documents in December, 2007 and attempted to analyze the documents. Frankly, many board members were shocked to learn that the swim club generated revenues (according to their documents) of over $25,000 in their 2006-2007 fiscal year and paid the school district a total of $577 in custodial fees! Their records also indicated that over $12,000 was paid for their coaches and life guards, all without the issuance of any 1099s. According to their representatives, the head coach receives $600 per month. In an attempt to answer questions the board had given the documents submitted, swim club representatives were invited to attend a school board meeting. Their representatives appeared at our meeting on January 17, 2007 and the discussion of their operations lasted for an hour. Other written questions were submitted by me to their group and have yet to be answered. Reviewing the roster documents provided by the swim club (three separate rosters were provided before the group consisted of more than 75% district residents), it became apparent to many board members that the swim club and perhaps other groups were not paying the district any monies for the use of our taxpayer financed facilities while at the same time making our facilities available to non-residents at little cost and even at less cost than district residents. Many on the board were of the belief that the extensive use of non-district residents in Carlynton community based programs was not serving the interests of the district especially since these programs were not serving as a feeder program for the Carlynton athletic programs. Contrary to what has been circulated, the review of the facilities use policy was not a vendetta by the board against any groups. It was an effort by the board to do what is right for the taxpayers of the district and an attempt to limit non-district participation in athletic related programs so that these programs would hopefully encourage more resident participation and serve as feeder programs for all athletic programs. When considering changes to the policy, I believe the board bent over backwards to get input from the community, even going so far as having a meeting on May 27th so that the public could give their input regarding the facilities use policy. This meeting was held even though at every meeting this year comments were made by residents concerning the policy. Interestingly, many of the people who attended the May 27th meeting advised the board that they are running very successful and competitive programs using 100% Carlynton residents. (Carlynton Boys Youth Basketball, Carlynton Girls Youth Basketball, Carlynton Youth Wrestling) That is the goal we wish to attain. We acted to implement the policy changes at our June meeting as the new school year is approaching and, as in the past, we have no scheduled July meetings. There was no intent to rush through a policy as has been intimated. All board members have been aware of the issues since last fall. Extensive community input was given to the board. My belief is that a few members were hoping we would make no changes to the existing policy and felt time was on their side. This policy was not drafted without exploring all of the facts. To make it seem that certain board members are acting on their own to the detriment of the school district is absurd. The board members who supported this policy have consistently implemented fiscally sound policies as evidenced by no tax increases in 5 years, savings of over $20,000 in our insurance premiums for next year, requiring rebidding for our new telephone system resulting in approximately $15,000 in savings, and the execution of a new collective bargaining agreement with our professionals through June 2013 with raises substantially less than currently negotiated agreements. What price do you put on guaranteed education with no threat of a work stoppage through the 2012-2013 school year? All of our coaches are expected to be involved in the youth programs of the area. They are expected to be involved in these programs without receiving any monies from the district. Our wrestling, soccer, basketball, baseball, softball, volleyball, and football coaches are all actively involved in Carlynton youth programs and receive no additional monies for their commitment to making our athletic programs successful. They do not expect to be compensated for their efforts. In answer to your question, the same should be expected of the swim coach as he already receives a salary of $5900 for coaching the high school and junior high programs. No coaches in the district receive any salary for their involvement in any of any youth programs. Frankly, I was surprised when you raised the question and explained that the swim club salary was really for Mr. Schneiderlochner’s involvement in a youth program. This position was never stated to the board in any of our meetings as justification for the swim club salaries. Please bear with me while I share with you some other thoughts. Hopefully, you will communicate this information to others. 1. Contrary to what has been published in the Signal-Item and circulated by others, no district resident will pay any additional fees to participate in any Carlynton athletic program. Carlynton taxpayers have paid for the facilities and children within this District shall use our facilities at no additional cost. As an example, the Carlynton School District supplies the pool, the coach, and the chemicals to the swim club at no charge. All that is required of this organization is to have a membership roster of 90% district residents. For purposes of accurately counting district residents, we believe using K-12 students is an appropriate safeguard so that we are not faced with receiving many different rosters as was the case this year. We do not believe college students should be counted as a part of a roster to inflate the % of district residents and hence avoid paying fees for the use of taxpayer paid facilities. Note that the swim club roster contains 28 non-district residents and 4 college students in their last submitted roster of 117 individuals. Please check out the photograph on page 25 of the July 10th Signal Item to see the achievements of some of the swim team members. By the way, 4 of the 5 swimmers pictured are non-residents of our district! 2. The new policy states that a $100 per quarter participation fee will be assessed to all non-district participants within a Carlynton athletic program. Since most athletic activities last 3 months, I believe the $100 fee is reasonable for non-district participants. The decision as to whether to charge a district resident a fee to participate is solely the decision of the organization or group. The school board plays no role in what a group or organization charges their members. We are only concerned about our district athletes and are tired of hearing arguments in support of non-district athletes. An example of the inequities within different districts may start with a review of the costs to a Montour District swimmer paying $525 to swim with the Montour program versus the fee of $225 charged to swim with the Carlynton program. As a parent, where would you choose to have your out-of-district swimmer enroll? How does the Montour, West Allegheny, Chartiers Valley, Keystone Oaks, or Moon student help our Carlynton program? 3. The new policy enhances our youth programs by teaching our students at a young age to compete and participate within a team of their peers (district residents). Hopefully, by competing together, they will learn the skills of competition and these programs will enhance our athletic teams as the athletes reach their junior and senior high school years. We do not charge our taxpayers for these programs. 4. The new policy does not prevent any athletic program from adding non-district students. The policy permits 10% of the athletic program to consist of non-district students and the group or organization still is not required to pay the district a facilities usage fee. If the group or organization decides to enroll more than 10% non-district students, the group or organization is subject to the fee schedules of the policy. The choice is theirs and I believe having the ability to have 5 in 50 or 10 in 100 non-district residents is certainly reasonable. Using the swim club’s roster as an example, almost 90 of their members are district residents. They could continue to have 9 non-district participants and still pay no facilities usage fee. All that would be required to be paid to the district is the $100 per quarter participation fee. 5. A few have argued that the board is not being a ‘good neighbor’ in enacting the new policy. Nothing can be further from the truth. The policy was enacted to benefit Carlynton athletic programs and not for the purpose of making money from our neighbors. All of our neighbors have the same amenities as Carlynton. All of them have youth sports programs and facilities for the use of their athletic programs. No one who is a resident of the Montour, Moon, West Allegheny, Chartiers Valley, or Keystone Oaks school districts will be unable to compete in a swimming or other athletic program. All of these districts have a swim team or club and compete with other districts. Yet they all charge their own taxpayers a fee greater that what our program charges their non-district son or daughter. What is the justification for our district to be the ‘best deal in town?’ I am concerned with our taxpayers and the integrity of our programs. If our critics are truly concerned about being a ‘good neighbor’ then I suggest that they consider inviting underprivileged students within our district to participate in their programs at a little or no cost. That is my definition of a ‘good neighbor.’ 6. I am offended when I read that Director Brown orchestrated the seemingly deceptive passing of the revised facilities use policy. Director Brown only made the motion and called for a vote on the motion. Comments regarding Director Brown are an affront to those of us who voted in favor of the revised policy. To think that the limiting of the debate on this issue would have somehow changed the outcome of the board’s vote is wrong. All directors were well versed on the language of the policy and had spent months reviewing the facts and arguments both for and against revising the current policy. Interestingly, the board members who opposed the revision to this facility use policy expressed no concerns over the $5000+ payment made by the Little Cougars for last year’s use of our facilities. To somehow imply that this was an orchestrated effort by Director Brown seemingly implies that the other directors just followed along without voting their own conscience and without giving any thought or concern as to what policy is in the best interests of the district. If Directors acted without any thought, perhaps it would be reasonable to inquire of the Superintendent as to his views of what the policy should be? You might be shocked to learn that he supported a 100% policy district policy and communicated that preference to me on many occassions! Links and Source Read an on-line response to Mrs. Schirripa's message For further information about this issue and the history behind it: * A detailed accounting on how this policy was passed. * A brief introduction to the history behind this issue * A detailed accounting of the history behind this issue * http://Carlynton.blogspot.com is an open forum for discussion of this issue. * Video clips of some directors expressing their viewpoints of this issue at various school board meetings. Entire meeting discussions are also here. * Comments to the Carlynton school board on April 17, 2008 and May 1, 2008 urging the school board to adopt a more open policy and to seek input from the community prior to adopting any new policies. * A letter to school administrators and board about facilities use policies in other districts in response to misinformation presented by some school board members at the May 27, 2008 school board meeting. * Proposed modifications to the existing policy that would address the concerns raised about the current policy while at the same time ensure that resident groups can create the best possible environment for citizens, especially youth. * The 7 original proposals put forth by the Carlynton school board. These clearly show an intent to heavily penalize any group that has non-resident members. Some even penalize youth sports teams for hosting home meets against non-resident teams. Press Coverage *Post Gazette July 3, 2008 * Post Gazette May 8, 2008 * Signal Item May 22, 2008 * Post Gazette Editorial June 19 2008 * Post Gazette West June 12, 2008 ** See the last sentence of paragraph 6: "Some board members believe Carlynton children are left out in favor of children from the communities crowded around tiny Carlynton's borders." * Signal Item May 8, 2008 ________________________________________